On 11/7/15, Joseph Gentle <me@josephg.com> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
http://louderwithcrowder.com/obama-praises-australias-gun-ban-the-actual-res...
The following quote does have embedded links: "there’s argument about whether the gun related homicides and other various crimes have actually increased or not. Some places have the homicide rate increasing at 3.2% along with armed robbery at 44%, while some other stats have them remaining about the same. At the very least, we do know that the policies have not significantly decreased crime. That’s not even being debated. Which…considering that the Australian government spent a considerable amount of money on the laws, seems at the very least, disappointing." That article's comments also linked to the following, which is much more useful: "Australia enacted one of the largest gun reforms ever nearly 2 decades ago — and gun deaths plummeted" http://www.businessinsider.com/australia-gun-control-shootings-2015-10 and which, despite the headline, goes on to highlight with stats from -before- the gun law changes (well shit, how can you see a cause if you don't know the numbers prior to the supposed cause), "Firearm suicides and homicides did drop after Australia's buyback and enactment of the NFA. As The Washington Post's Wonkblog has pointed out, researchers from two different Australian universities found that, in the decade after the NFA was introduced, the firearm homicide rate fell by 59% and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65% — without increases in other types of deaths. Here's a bigger picture: [graph] australia gun deaths bi Andy Kiersz/Business Insider Whether the NFA catalyzed that decline, however, is still up for debate. Over the last several decades, gun deaths in most developed nations have been trending downward, and studies struggle to determine how much of the drop resulted from Australia's legislation. Causality is also inherently difficult to determine in social sciences." And that graph is, to my eyes, unequivocally compelling - the trend was already in place, and the Port-Aurthur massacre 'NFA' laws change did -not- effect that trend in an identifiable way - in fact, it could well be argued that the change in laws precipitated a steady decline in the annual reduction of Australian gun-deaths, to the point where it appears that the decline has all but plateaued - i.e. no more decline. But what I won't say is that these Australian post Port Arthur laws caused that plateau - frankly I have no idea, and a proper study of potential causes would need to be undertaken, if it's possible at all... What this graph clearly shows is that it is impossible to conclude that those Australian post Port Arthur compulsory gun buyback 'NFA' laws caused any increase in the prior trend of gun death decline within Australia.
Its amazing NRA propaganda still manages to rewrite the history on the story on the ground here. You just don't see guns in Australia. I
Actually, I do. I live rurally though.
don't know anyone who has one. I'd never seen a gun be drawn or fired in real life before I moved to the USA. (Source: I've lived in Australia for 30 years)
I've lived in Australia for longer than you. So what - that's irrelevant to the point - whether or not gun-related crime and/ or deaths has reduced due to Australia's anti-gun policy, or not. We could also debate whether disarming of the population is a 'good' thing or not but that would be opinion porn.
From http://theconversation.com/faking-waves-how-the-nra-and-pro-gun-americans-ab... :
While the impact of the Australian gun laws is still debated, there have been large decreases in the number of firearm suicides and the number of firearm homicides in Australia. Homicide rates in Australia are only 1.2 per 100,000 people, with less than 15% of these resulting from firearms.
Current rates, are not comparative rates. Common sense 1-0-1. (In case you miss the point - comparative means not between countries, but comparing the point at issue - Australia's compulsory gun buyback laws introduction.)
Prior to the implementation of the gun laws, 112 people were killed in 11 mass shootings. Since the implementation of the gun laws, no comparable gun massacres have occurred in Australia.
I am not qualified to comment on the statistical significance of this, nor do I have facts regarding this - although the Lindt Cafe shooting earlier this year in Sydney may or may not be a relevant data point.
Remarkably, American pro-gun advocates try to use the impact of the Australian gun law reform to make a case that reform “doesn’t work”.
From the comparative statistics I've seen, and everything I've read since Port Arthur, I believe the NRA position to be correct. As of this year, we now have more guns in Australia than we had prior to the buyback. Again, perhaps not a very useful data point.
This seems amazing given the homicide rate in the United States is five per 100,000 people, with most homicides involving firearms.
Again, comparing countries anecdotally is not the same as analysing the effects of population disarming laws.
From http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502 :
"From 1996 to 2003, the total number of gun deaths each year fell from 521 to 289, suggesting that the removal of more than 700,000 guns was associated with a faster declining rate of gun suicide and gun homicide,"
Again hog-wash, since there is no comparison to the pre-disarm-laws. Unlike the graph I posted above.
By 2002/03, Australia's rate of 0.27 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 population had dropped to one-fifteenth that of the United States.
Again, I don't know how this is relevant to analysing the efficacy of gun control laws. Zenaan PS: I read in one article the claim that 'unlike America, Australians don't have a constitutional right to bear arms'. This is actually not true, just that most people don't know it. Our Australian federal constitution creates the Commonwealth of Australia, creates each of the states, creates our superior court (the High Court we call it), creates our federal parliament, and our High Court, in Mabo 2 (a ruling from I think 1998) upheld the continuity of the Imperial Acts including the Bill of Rights 1688, as well as the Magna Charta/ Magna Carta. Unfortunately, the head of our NRA equivalent sold us out quite some years back when he proclaimed very publicly "there's nothing we can" (or words to that effect). Australians - mostly bloody ratbags acting in total self interest.